ST, Pan-Asian destroyers
All destroyers in the line had their smoke screens changed.
Set up time – 30 instead of 40 seconds;
Active time – 70 instead of 60 seconds;…
Reload – 120 instead of 90 seconds for standard and 80 instead 60 for premium equipment.
These changes make smoke gameplay more balanced with other destroyers.

More info about the Graf Zeppelin, taken from the FB testing group by Horin728:

Greetings, captains!
We are back and pleased to announce that the 4th phase of Graf Zeppelin testing starts next week after 0.6.13.1 update.
All test participants will receive two aircraft carriers – GZ Test I and GZ Test II.
GZ Test I with Flight control: 1-0-3 (1 fighter squadron and 3 bomber squadrons). Your fighter squadron will have 9 planes. The tier of fighters has been reduced to VII without changes in their battle performance. For your bombers squadrons you may choose between AP and HE bombs.
This flight control is introduced to address the point that was appearing in your feedback: lack of air superiority.
GZ Test II with Flight control: 1-2-1 (1 fighter squadron, 2 torpedo bomber squadrons and 1 bomber squadron). Your fighter and bomber squadrons will have 9 planes. The tier of fighters has been reduced to VII without changes to their battle performance. For your bomber squadrons you may choose between AP and HE bombs.
This is completely new flight control with all the aircraft types. It offers a good compromise between air superiority and striking, but be careful – your torpedo bombers hit only Aircraft Carriers and Battleships.
Aircraft takeoff time and time required to prepare for takeoff have been cut in two for GZ Test I and GZ Test II. Also, we reduced landing time for all aircraft.
Thanks, and see you soon!

Answers from the Q&A 17 on Reddit from Sub_Octavian, compiled by LilJumpa (EU)

Q: Hi, can I ask about the logic in IJN premiums lately? Many are sister ships of tech tree ships, but they appear in ‘stock’ form one tier lower (i.e. Mutsu, Ashitaka, Musashi). I can’t help but notice that the IJN seems to be getting this very often, meanwhile other nations have sister ships in the same tier (Missouri, upcoming Duke of York, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst). The IJN also have other ship classes or sisters with equivalent refits that can be balanced to the same tier, so why not release those instead? Perhaps there are other plans for the ships that did exist?

A: I’d say, it is not some deliberate strategy, but rather a coincidence. While Musashi was a pretty popular request, Mutsu and Ashitaka are the result of us having spare hulls (basically, ship models), and willing to put them into use. Actually, the former New Mexico stock hull could have a new life as well. We do not plan to specifically continue with such ships for IJN, and will try to make IJN premium fleet generally more diverse.

Q: i have 2 camo related questions. First, any chance of adding the second colour option that you get whit the Yamamoto collection to premium camoes as well, like Zao or Yamato’s premium camo. Second question is regarding North Carolina’s premium camo, so when i bought it i really loved the look it had on the A hull, but when i finally went and upgraded the camo changed to another completely different skin. Any possibility to let you change so you can get the A hull camo on the B hull?A:

You know, yes, there is a chance. The mechanics is not here, because permanent camos work a bit differently from regular ones in terms of their texture application, so adding customization option requires a lot of additional work – hence, it was not present initially. But as we see, overall color customization is quite a thing for many players, so implementing it for permanent camos sounds reasonable. We will try to do it, probably in the beginning of 2018.

Sorry, I don’t think so, and 2 skins per 1 camo is more a legacy thing.

Q: Does the presence of the Torpedo-Guy on board the cargo-vessel have anything to do with the probability to drop a supercontainer (when using TYL-containers)?

A: Of course. But the exact relation formula is очень sekrit, and I’m not going to Gulag for indulging your curiosity!

Q: Can we get objective based achievements?

Though we are awarded medals for dealing lots of damage(like High Caliber) or tanking lots of damage(like Fireproof), I find it odd there is no comparable medal for playing the objective. It would be nice if WG rewarded certain medals for playing the objective, like take 2 caps in 1 match, taking 1 cap as a CV, earn X amount of defended ribbons, etc.

A: It is a nice idea, IMO, and I will relay it to the guys responsible for achievement update! Thank you!

Q: AA Boost to DDs that use def AA?
A: For many CVs a DD is the go to target to strike, initially CVs should concentrate on heavy targets, but economically and gameplaywise it’s very profitable to go after DDs in the beginning of the round so we wanted to give those DDs that spec into AA give better results (1st reason to boost AA). On some DDs in randoms we see that AA speccing is not as viable/popular as regular DD speccing, thus more efficiency to make it more appealing (2nd reason to boost AA).

From this answer, I see 2 problems:

The change does nothing to DDs that were prone to airspotting (IJN, KM, non DFAA VMF DDs). They will remain vulnerable to prolonged spotting with exceptions such as Akizuki, Z-46, and Z-52. In this case, the permaspotting may continue.

The change buffs AA-spec DDs which were already very good at shooting down equal-tier planes. In fact, as you would know, the long range DPS of DFAA DDs, without any modifiers, will now exceed that of the best-in-tier BBs. Is this intentional? This would create a very abusable scenario where if a CV divisions with 2 AA spec DDs (sims, fletcher as examples), they will simply lock down at least 1 or even 2 caps, effectively shutting down enemy CVs with BB-quality AA from long lasting (USN) smoke since CV MM is mirrored and MM in general does NOT compensate for consumables or ship AA levels, only ship classes.

So, with this change, WG have effectively widened the AA gap between non-DFAA DDs and DFAA DDs… which does not make sense. I’m sure many here (including myself) would love to see a buff to the average DD level while letting AA spec DDs wreck planes, such that permaspotting will be harder to do. Of course, this will take effort to research on just how much DPS is needed. Is this one of the points of focus of the CV rework?

This sparked a further question in the back of my mind: If the change is meant to make CV players focus on “heavy” targets at the start of the game, should it not make more sense to provide incentives for CVs to attack BBs at the start?

I know the XP system works based on percentage health, but more importantly the impact is quick and decisive with a DD while it is simply risky to go after a BB at the start.

At the moment, they are in formation, healthy, and almost always have cruiser escort at the start. It seems like you are trying to make CVs attack BBs not because they are more appealing, but because (DFAA) DDs would be simply unpalatable to attack or even approach.

EDIT: another important question that was forgotten: Are there any current plans for fighters that can attack ships as well? I recall WG saying something about that.

A: The main goal for this change is better competition between AA and regular loadouts within the ships affected, not changing CV target priority.

As a whole, you’re raising quite valid points. The problem is, in the existing concept of CVs it’s really hard to achive perfect balance of CV-related stuff. Buffing AA of “non-AA” DDs would be absolutely out of AA system (right now each AA mount has certain characteristics which we try to at least base on its historical performance).

Actually, there could be two more ways to change the situation:

Increasing the strike capabilities of CVs to the extent they really don’t care who they annihilate (in this case, they will partly switch to other classes).

Introducing Pan-Asian-like DW torpedoes for all CVs, so they will be able to use only DBs when dealing with DDs.

Both ways are rather controversial, and have lots of drawbacks. And they do not solve DD “overspotting” problem.

Frankly speaking, we are going (I said this several times before) to test at least 1 new “overhauled” CV prototype in the future. And all the issues we’re talking about now are on the “to be fixed here” list. I mean, it’s probably a lot more efficient to solve these problems within the overhauled prototype than right now. Because our current experience is influencing the development from the very beginning.

As for fighters/strikers cross-capabilities, it’s can be discussed, again, with the new concept.

Q: What’s the status of HMCS Haida at this point?

iChase showed the behind the scenes filming of the Naval Legends episode for Haida but we’ve seen or heard nothing about that for months.

/u/pigeon_of_war said he was working on getting Haida into the game a few months ago however, the rumors on the forum said he brought Haida up to the head office in St. Petersburg and the idea didn’t go over well.

Can we get a bit of insight on what’s going on atleast with the Naval Legends video if nothing else? Thank you in advance.

A: The status is “we’re working on it”. Here, I said this. Don’t tell anyone. Especially Pigeon – let’s make a surprise for him:)

Q: Could you elaborate upon the formula used to determine torpedo damage reduction numbers/TDS value? Richelieu was noted for having a very deep, elaborate TDS layout using multiple layers and a thing called ebonnite mousse, which gave her one of the best, if not the best underwater protection systems of any battleship ever put afloat, yet in-game she has a paltry 19% (according to the devblog). Similarly, King George V’s TDS, which was noted for being at least passable and at best pretty good is also fairly low; on the other hand, Roma, a battleship using a system that was noted for being really bad and potentially a liability has a better TDS rating than Richelieu!

Which brings me to my question: is there a formula that’s being used to determine these numbers or are they being fudged for balance reasons? If there’s a formula, does it actually take an underwater protection system’s layout and contents (single layer vs multiple layer liquid-filled and void compartments, mousse, crush tubes like the Pugliese system, etc) into account, or is it solely based upon system depth and holding bulkhead thickness?

A: The base formula uses armor thickness and volume. It does not take the material and other peculiarities into account. So, after base TDS is calculated, we tweak it individually lore-wise and gameplay-wise. 19% is the base value, most probably it will be tweaked (improved). And yes, you’re absolutely right about ebonnie mousse, that’s why we will be reviewing base value.

Q: Hello S_O. My question is on Detonations. Tl;dr: You talked briefly in a previous Q&A about detonations and I would like more information from you on the whole detonation issue. I’ll try to keep this professional but I also despise the mechanic in game so there will be strong statements.

Currently, you have a player go from 75%-100% HP to 0 with a dice roll, ending their game as the detonation mechanic. Low health detonations aren’t nearly as much of an issue as you’d probably have died anyway.

Let’s say a top player is in a division with 2 others and a random shell misses their Gearing and detonates them 2 minutes in, the only mistake they made was running out of detonation signals by using them in previous games, now they need to wait at most 18 minutes to play the game more because they were in a division. They also lose 200k silver because they did not have a chance to do anything yet. This circumstance is why the playerbase despises detonations.

To me, this is bad game design (I’m not a dev at all so please elaborate on why you disagree with this as I assume you do because detonations are in game). Instantly destroying a ship through no fault of the player’s because of a dice roll, in a game without respawns, with repair bills, is viewed as bad game design in my opinion and many other top clan’s opinions as well.

You have also mentioned that detonations are needed “from the game design PoV” and I would very much appreciate to read why you think this way. Many others, as well as myself, see detonations as un-fun situations that only make the playerbase rage as it is a dice roll to end their game.

In the previous thread I mentioned before, you stated:

we conducted several inquiries, even monitoring “rage quits” (and session time) connection with detonations. And…there is nothing to back up the theory it hurts the players.

People will still play the game because there’s nothing else quite like warships, but it hurts your image a lot that you are leaving a dice-roll base game mechanic that instantly kills you in the game. I imagine that many players will spend a lot of money on the game if you remove detonations because that is something most people really want (probably changing detonations so they do a percentage of health to the ship so you can’t die from full health because of it). Even those that want to keep it in game won’t actually miss it because it doesn’t happen enough, but it’ll mean that no one ever needs to worry about it again.

Apologies if this seems harsh to you, S_O, but I care a lot about this mechanic and want the team to understand what some of the players think and not just server stats about players.

My question is essentially can you please respond to the points I brought up.

Thanks for reading this and I hope you had/will have a safe trip back to your home.

Idea after re-reading my post: I’m not sure how good or bad of an idea this would be, but maybe changing detonations to do 40-50% damage instead of 100% damage along with destroying the gun above where the detonation occurred. If this occurs, you still get the detonation achievement and signals as normal, you just have less chance to die from it. Just a spitball idea to keep detonations in game as I’m sure that’s what your team’s plan is. I still don’t like that a shell can miss the ship and detonate it and would like that changed as well.

A: I understand your points, and I’ve been thinking about this for long time myself – as the questions about detonation are quite consistent.

You know, I just discussed it once again with my colleagues, and we decided to review the detonation mechanics, see what can be done with current way it is implemented. We’re not ready for overhauling it, but what we will try to do is addressing early detonations, when ships still have a lot of HP. I think it is a fine place to start, and then, we’ll see.

Thanks for bringing this up in an adequate manner:)

Q: Any thought of making torpedo’s require someone in the detection radius to make them visible? In other words if they are plane spotted they only remain visible if the plane is actively in range detecting them?

Many a torp launch are ruined by spotter/catapault fighter planes rendering an attack with a large cool down ruined.

A: No. Even if we considered it to be a design choice, it’s too “moddable”, and thus, exploitable. We avoid adding the mechanics that are easy to exploit for unfair advantage.

Q: With the re-shuffling of the American Cruiser lines, has there been any thought given to un-nerfing the reload speed on 5″/38 twin mounts used as secondary batteries? Since the addition of increasingly more powerful and numerous Dual Purpose guns at tier 6-7 ( as well as the upwards movement of Cleveland ) have essentially rendered the old explanations for their slow fire rate obsolete? Especially when other nations secondaries are treated with the best-case-scenario in mind, even ones with already powerful gun and torpedo armament?

It would be a nice bonus to a line that relies entirely on its guns and fighting at close-medium range, where other nations have powerful torpedo batteries.

On that note, is there any reason not to give Colorado the Maryland hull, now that Lyon is entering the game with incredibly powerful Dual Purpose AA/secondaries, which totally outstrips the aged and powercrept American tier 7 in terms of both surface and Anti-Air lethality? It seems counter-intuitive that what-if refits for ships that were never built are allowed to be downright superior to real ships that are left languishing, because the wartime refits THEY received are deemed “too powerful” for some nebulous reason?

A: Right now we don’t consider any cruiser to have really viable secondaries; and I can’t say it’s really good for the game to have such ships. So, with downgrading, there could be changes, but I wouldn’t expect too much in terms of secondaries

Q: You said that Lesta is going to do a rebalance of CVs, but I’m really interested in the situation with some really old ships in WoWs. These ships are not really interesting to play at the moment and even though their stats are not that bad they still worse than others. One of the best examples is Izumo and Shimakaze. After plenty of changes in our game these japanese ships became boring and uncomfortable in most of the cases. I know a simple answer that sounds like “the stats of these ships are ok so no changes required”, but it’s not what I actually wait for.

A: This simple answer here is almost correct. These ships are widely played, they perform well…why tweak them instead of focusing on the ships that really underperform or overperfom, or on the entire new line we’re producing? Sorry, but “interesting” is too subjective. I mean, if they are not interesting for you, try others.

That said, we’re going to test some interesting new stuff for Shimakaze in the near future ;)

Q: In a discussion many months ago about balancing the shima I suggested removing the stock 20km torps or at least making them not the default. At the time you said this was a good idea and would consider it, since this change never happened you guys obviously rejected it. I was just wondering if we could have a follow up on why you didn’t make this change and ask if you could consider it again

A: Okay, as a fellow Shima admirer, let me share our current plan (very work-in-progress, subject to change or cancellation, not a promise):

To test 20 km DW (anti BB/CV) torpedoes with her as an option.

To test TRB within smoke slot as an option.

To change the research order as you suggest – so that 20 km torps, regardless of their specs, are not the default.

Q: Hello, I’d like to know how many Belfasts, Kutuzovs and Perths were returned during 0.6.12.

A: Nice try:) No, I won’t tell you these numbers. However, I will gladly tell you the percentage of returned ships (RU, NA, EU, ASIA total):

Belfast: 5,2% Kutuzov: 5,7% Perth: 6,6%

Of course we don’t know the exact reason each player had to return these ships. But here you are.

Q: Can we get an animation of penetration\bounce\shatter of shell on demand (option in settings or key press) a la War Thunder Ground Force….

It would be interested what did we hit and score citadel or why didn’t we get the citadel….:)

A: I’m afraid for now, we can’t. The major features, unlike minor tweaks, are normally planned ahead, and the reason to change the plans (and to undermine some production) should be very big. This is not the case, and honestly, if we speak about ballistics, we’d rather do some ballistics/ribbon polishing to improve the balance and fix some random strange stuff – and actually, we’re working on it.

Q: Special Radar Upgrades are mandatory for Clan Battles. But many people have not been Rank 2 in that one season. Chances of getting the right upgrade in a Supercontainer are very low. How about a short campaign, to aquire one of each for everybody?

A: So, NOW they ARE good, aren’t they?:)

On a serious note, that’s a good point. I cannot promise you anything, but I will speak with the in-game events team, try to learn what’s up, as these upgrades got more value in players’ opinion, and probably, can be used a bit – just a bit, as we don’t want to devalue them – more.

Q: Clear sky at tier 8 and above are pretty much as hard to get as a solo warrior (yet you need them for a mission in 2 campaigns). Can we expect a reasonable requirement for this achievement any time soon ? Or are you happy with it being one of the rarest medal (at 8+) ?
What about the Juliet Yankee Bissotwo (-20% flooding duration). Flooding ticks for 2 minutes, yet the DCP can easily be lower than 90 seconds, making this consumable pointless. Maybe change it so that it lowers the flooding damage taken by 20%, helping out until DCP is ready again ?!

A: We will rework Clear Sky, dear WarlockFromMars. You’re totally right, it needs some change, and sorry for it taking so long.

When do you plan to fix this, by your words, “quite rare” bug? Apparently it’s been around about forever. And you’ve known about it for that long. Yet I see examples in every game I play. I am also able to reproduce it with the exact circumstances, and I’ve handed it to you on a silver platter. Yet despite all these steps, and your extensive knowledge of it, it has not yet been fixed.

So, when do you plan to fix the fact that AP shells often do more damage than they should?

A: I said that several times, and sorry that you’ve missed it – the ballistics will be updated somewhere mid-2018 – maybe a little earlier – and not only strange cases of damage & ribbons, but also other issues, like BB AP -> DD damage. I won’t give you any when, because messing with ballistics is not a quick thing, and it my take longer (or shorter, if we’re very lucky) than we currently predict. As for your help and cooperation – thank you, the data indeed was sent directly to Game Logic guys, who play the main part in these possible update.

Q: As always, you answer questions, I take care of a compact readers digest afterwards.

QUESTION: From me this time only a quick one: In one of the last QnAs you mentioned that currently some new maps are currently in development (yay!). With that in mind, any chance that some of the current high tier maps (Tiers of the desert, Okinawa, and especially Islands of Ice ) get a rework? I think most of us would be happy with a ‘refreshed’ older version of e.g. Islands of Ice.

Again, thanks for this continuous stream of QnAs, Interviews and what not!

Q: will we get the Musashi this year? is it for freexp? is the USS Salem Ranked reward for 7x R1 ?

A: Sorry, no comments on these:) It’s a secret, and they’re watching me.

Q: Hi Sub!

When will Hard difficulty be added to scenario battles? It could be something as simple as x3 HP for all enemy ships. For clans that tackle these missions together, a 5 star can be achieved on the first attempt and there is little to no value in re-playing it afterwards.

I am experiencing major FPS issues if and only if I am playing as CV. I have a very high quality computer and FPS is excellent normally, but when I am in a CV my FPS drops to around 10. Is this a personal problem or a server wide problem? If its the latter, when will it be fixed?

Is Tone still on hold? Is she in a super low priority on the to do list? I have been waiting to throw my wallet at it.

Since Tears of the Desert Epicenter is not favored by popular opinion, are there plans to reduce the frequency of it appearing much like what was done to Ocean?

Will there be any cross spawns (like the original hot spot back in CBT) and/or unique spawns (like in CW) ever be implemented in random battles?

A:

I cannot tell you that, because we’re still not sure about several design choices.

I’m not aware of mass issue you describe, but in any case you should contact Customer Support. Yes, sometimes they take time, but they’re the best guys to solve such issue anyways. If you have real problems with them after you submit your case, please PM me.

She is still on hold.

We will see about it, you may want to drop in my latest thread about maps.

Same.

Q: US Cruiser split: Can we expect the posts to the new ships in Devblog in the next 1-2 weeks or is it too early in development to release them?

Q: Just a quick question: Will WG ever release a book with all the schematics of the ships that are present in-game? Like with a nice blurb on how modernizations for ships that required them were determined and how the ships that had to be designed from scratch (like the Zao, Hindenburg, etc.) were designed? I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d greatly appreciate that! Hope I was clear enough :)

A: Heya. I doubt it, and not because it’s a bad idea (I’m not experienced in merchandise to say whether such book would be appreciated) but mostly because that would involve publishing A LOT of data we’re not licensed to publish – only to use for development. Sorry.

Q: Since we’ve been talking about French ships as of late:

What’s the logic behind giving Richelieu the worse DPM at its tier, one of the lowest alpha of its tier and dispersion similar to Bismarck all at the same time?

What’s up with Richelieu’s TDS? It is widely recognized as one of the best TDS of its time period, yet it’s utter trash in game.

If you didn’t intend to add Strasbourg to the tech tree, why didn’t you make it a premium ship instead of Dunkerque?

Can we expect to see a high tier French premium in the near future? France will get its second line soon, yet it’s stuck with only T6 premiums for captain training. The Pan-Asia line has had a T8 long before its first line, and Italy is getting two soon even though their first tech tree line is a long way off.

A: 1-2: Dude, we should really stop discussing WIP stuff that early. Let’s NOT do it, please – this makes no sense. Such questions are the reason I doubt the Dev Blog sometimes. 3. Who told you she cannot appear as a premium at some point? 4. No comments on unannounced ships, as always.

I know these answers don’t tell you a lot, and I’m sorry for that, but please consider asking some questions I can answer without breaking NDA/speculating. Cheers!

A2: I’m just trying to define what questions make sense at what point:)

Q: How is the skill based mm doing ? Any ETA ? It’s about time those stats farming divisions by top clans will be balanced accordingly, not by sub par exp pinatas.

A: It’s not doing well, because we’re not going to implement it to Random PvP, and this was answered and explained a lot.

Q: Just a few questions;

One of the things that has baffled quite a few of us has been choice of ships for premiums for Italy, specifically cruisers. What exactly lead to the decision for Duca degli Abruzzi being chosen over her sister, the Garibaldi, which is usually the better known sister of the class, and certainly carrying the more recognizable name?

Also, via the use of certain websites, it’s been found that on Abruzzi’s armor model the 30mm decapping belt is extended into the bows, all the way to the stem of the ship. All sources, a least that those of us in the community have at their disposal, state that the 30mm plating did not extend past the citadel. Is the existence of this extended portion in Abruzzi the result of a previously unknown source, or is it something WG chose to add as a balance decision?

When it comes to Roma’s guns, what shells were in mind when WG was deciding on which to use for AP & HE? IRL, Italian battleships only has a pure AP shell (palla) and then a type of SAP round (granta perforante). The palla was the 884.8 kg shell originally fired at 870mps, but then lowered to 850mps, while the granta perforante was fired at 880mps. There was also a 774kg HE shell with a bursting charge of roughly 80kg under development, without a specified muzzle velocity. When Roma’s data was released on the Devblog, it was a bit confusing to see the MV for AP/HE listed last 880/805 mps. Does this mean the AP shells chosen is the 824 kg GP, as opposed to the heavier Palla shells, and that the in-development HE round is being used as HE?

A:

Well. Let’s just say we reserved Garibaldi for some of the more distant future things.

I don’t know about certain websites, but current armor model has this belt extended to bow (bow only, not aft) – and that is done according to Abruzzi’s original blueprints we have. Sorry, but I believe, we got it right this time.

Roma is WIP, so mind that all stats are not final, and there is no point in discussing them in such depth. Anyways, I will relay your question, so the shells are double-checked.

Q: The nameplates removed from Mikasa and Ishizuchi. Why were they removed?

A: That was a version bug. We will fix it.

Q: Any word on official replays ? Any chance we get to see the after game reports of other players like in WoT ?

A: We’re working on them; looks like Training Room: The Revised & Official Edition will be released first, though. But we will get to replays as well.

Q:

There’s errors in the belt armor on British battleships from tier 7 onwards (King George V, Monarch, and Lion); specifically, they have belt armor that’s slightly thicker than they actually are. The issue is discussed in depth here, but to summarize, the British ordered armor in pounds per square foot. For example, the King George V’s belt armor is 600 lb per square foot by magazines and 560 lb per square foot by machinery. Steel is 40.8 pounds per square foot, but in many cases for “nominal thickness”, the weight of steel is rounded down to 40 pounds per square foot for simplicity, so a 600 lb per square foot armor has a “nominal” thickness of 15 inches (381 mm), but in actually was only 14.7 inches (374 mm) thick. As a result, the King George V and Monarch should have 374 mm and 349 mm belt by magazines and machinery respectively, and the Lion should have a 374 mm belt. This is documented by Norman Friedman’s The British Battleships, 1906-1946, page 47., as seen here. I feel that this should be a pretty easy change, and shouldn’t make too much of a difference.

The King George V, Monarch, and Lion citadel height is also overly simplified and too low in some areas. Again, this is discussed in detail here, but in summary, the engine rooms and boiler rooms should sit a bit higher than the magazines, with the boiler room poking slightly above the waterline. Right now, the citadel on the King George V looks like this, when it really should look like this. Similarly, the Lion’s citadel should look like this. In game, I think this is a way to better balance the British battleships. They are currently unduly forgiving of showing broadside, and they are the most difficult ships to citadel after the German battleships. Given that one of WG’s advertised weaknesses of the British tier 7+ battleship is their more vulnerable broadside, their citadel should be raised and adjusted along these lines to actually reflect that.

Currently, the Colorado’s HP is abnormally low for her tonnage given in game. She only has 50,100 HP, while her in game tonnage is some 41,140 HP (historically she was 40,396.5 long tons in WW2 configuration), which should translate to 59,400 HP. Or, if we use the 40,396.5 ton displacement that she had historically, she would be 58,553 HP. Since the Colorado has very few advantages over the Nagato, is it possible to bring her HP up to standard? More discussion here.

The permanent camouflage that the Iowa has in game is the Missouri’s, while the Iowa herself had a wholly different Measure 32/1B scheme as seen here. Is there a change that the Iowa’s permanent camouflage can be updated to reflect this? A thread on the NA forums that discusses this is here.

A:

We’re fully aware of weight differences in various armor types, however, we use the standard value of 1 inch = 40 pounds. This situation is the same as with various chemical composition, homogeneous/cemented, etc, etc – we’re not ready to go full realistic here, and allow some simplification. So, there are no errors here – just game conventions.

We will see about changing their citadel, it could theoretically be an option, but not in the near future updates. Your arguments are noted.

Thanks for your research. I will ask the team to re-check HP calculation for this ship, and whether there is room to change it balance-wise – if needed.

Thanks for this suggestion. I am not sure this will be a high priority, but I will ask the team to check this information.

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding our stance on the political geography of ASIA, specifically concerning Taiwanese sovereignty in regards to a comment made in reply to a customer’s support ticket. That comment does not constitute the official position of Wargaming.net, but the personal view of that employee. As a company we do not have a political stance, affiliation or agenda – our mission is to create great games, globally and with passion. We sincerely apologize for this statement and will take steps to make sure our messaging remains apolitical in the future.

World of Warships and other games in our portfolio are about vehicles, their technologies and engineering, based in certain historical periods – not about the struggles of the nations who built them. In portraying our ships we draw on information from various sources, from blueprints to news articles and photographs – often from different places and periods. We want to depict them as close to their historical, real-life state as we can, in order to create a better sense of immersion and a stunning visual experience for our players. Whenever possible, this includes the flags and pennants they sailed under during the period the ship represents in the game. Time and again, this brings us into conflict with a part of our audience who raise concerns about these flags or the ships themselves in many different contexts. Our goal has always been to bring warships, naval combat and naval engineering closer to as many enthusiasts around the world as possible. We want to address these current concerns around the national affiliation of Pan-Asian nation branches as best we can for the majority of our audience, just as we have done with similar issues in the past.

Therefore, we will replace the flags on all Pan-Asian ships with the neutral Pan-Asian nation flag upon the release of the upcoming destroyer line. We hope this will remove the controversy and allow players to focus on the ships, their characteristics and gameplay.

However, to allow our regional communities the ability to customize their World of Warships experience, we will also introduce a feature that will give players the option to replace the default flag on their ship with a different one, chosen from a preset number of different variants. You will be able to change the flag for each ship in your port separately and this choice will be reflected on each instance of that ship you see in the game. Each player will always see only the flags they have chosen for each ship, regardless of whether they are on the players’ own ship, an allied or an enemy ship. We are starting the development of this feature immediately and believe we can deliver it to you early in 2018.

We sincerely apologize for any distress or inconvenience this situation has caused to our players. We hope that you will find the solution satisfactory and can continue enjoying our massive naval battles with no other emotion than pure fun. We would also like to thank our community for raising the issue and helping to improve our game. Together we can make World of Warships even more epic!

These changes will balance the ship better against other cruisers of the same tier.

Patch 0.6.14, American battleship Colorado, tier VII

Increased hit points for hull (B) from 50100 to 59300. The amount of hit points is now equal to ship’s displacement.
The sigma number for both hulls is set at 1.9, compared to 1.8 for hull (A) and 2.0 for hull (B) before.

ST, American cruiser Salem, tier X

Damage Control Party consumable cooldown is decreased from 90 to 60 seconds for option I and from 60 to 40 seconds for option II.
These changes are designed to make the ship more comfortable to play.

Patch 0.6.14, Pan-Asian destroyers

Base torpedo launchers were added to the tiers from IV to IX. They are similar to the top launchers of the previous tiers.
Torpedoes, that were installed on the ships already now become the top option, and need to be researched.

ST, French destroyer Aigle, tier VI

To increase the ship’s combat efficiency compared to other destroyers of the same tier, HE shell maximum damage is increased from 1000 to 2000.

Main battery turret rotation and elevation speeds are also changed: rotation speed is decreased from 10 to 6.5 degrees per second, elevation speed is decreased from 10 to 8 degrees per second

And the most important significant difference between Salem and DesMoines is ….
Eergh, actually I couldn’t spot one. Torpedos ? Smoke ? Epic guns ? Epic reload ? Epic HP ?
Or just a fancy ship name if anyone has problems pronouncing /demo:in/